Note to the reader--Since our well-liked comrade, Zero Ponsdorf, is sorely missed at present, I thought I might depart from my usual drearily sober path, pick up Zero's fallen pennant, and run with it...

Daniel Pipes has a column in today's New York Sun that is certain to raise the hackles of every red-blooded booze-swilling American, not to mention those of us, now teetotallers, who managed to cram a lifetime of drinking into the first half of their lifespan. The issue is somewhat complicated, hence the column ought to be read in its entirety.  Briefly stated, Muslim cab drivers at the MSP airport--who happen to be the majority of drivers there--have refused to accept passengers carrying beer, wine, or liquor.  It's against their religion, don'tcha know? It seems that the governing body, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, has cravenly caved in to this outrageous demand, and proposes to equip Muslim-driven cabs with a special light that indicates "Booze Streng Verboten." Presence of the light on the cab will permit the shari'a-sodden driver to refuse service while remaining at the head of the taxicab queue.

Never mind that this gives an unfair advantage to passengers who conceal their contraband inside their valises instead of manfully lugging it in the transparent shopping-bag that they acquired at the tax-free boutique.  Never mind that this establishes Islamic Prohibition as the supreme law of the land.

What's next? Will the FAA rule that from now on all licensed long-distance carriers must schedule a certain number of M-D flights--signifying Muslim-Dhimmi--every day?  No booze, no jooze, no infidels?  No dogs in the hold?  Hostesses in burqas?  Halal Lean Cuisine?  RR must be rolling in his grave.

Dr. Pipes recommends that people write to the regulatory commission and lodge a protest.  I second the motion.  What follows is a copy of the letter I have just submitted.  It is in no way intended to be any sort of model, merely an indication of the kind of maddened blurt that ensues when public officials act like fools.

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Airports Commission

Gentlemen:

I cannot believe that you are actually prepared to cave in to the demands of certain cab drivers that they be permitted to refuse service to otherwise acceptable passengers who happen to be carrying alcoholic beverages.  This is reminiscent of President Reagan's beef with air-traffic controllers, except that he was determined to enforce the regulations.

These individuals are employed in a public service, which I have to believe is governed by rules promulgated by the people's elected representatives.  In the first place, shari'a law forbids its adherents from consuming alcohol, not from being in the same vehicle with the booze.  Even if it did, that would merely dictate that Muslims not work in bars or other places where they might be exposed to alcohol.  It does not entitle Muslims or anyone else to discriminate against others who are exercising their lawful rights.

You have got to show some backbone.  The correct response to these outrageous claims is to point out to these people that they are governed by rules. If they don't like it, they can seek employment elsewhere.  It is not as if the labor pool of potential cab drivers is somehow restricted.  We have far too many young people in this country whose only evident employable skill is the ability to maneuver through traffic in an automobile.

It is about time that public officials recognized that the United States of America stands for something more than the absurd proposition that everyone is entitled to go through life without ever being offended.

Contributed by John Werntz on October 10, 2006 at 07:56 PM in Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Islamism Delenda Est, John "72nd TCS" Werntz | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: Rurik

So now you know why we refer to Minneapolis-Saint Paul as Mogadishu-On-Mississippi. this is just one indcation of why I departed Minnesota and claimed political asylum in South Dakota. Walter Judd must be spinning in his grave.

Posted by: Rurik | Oct 10, 2006 8:13:28 PM

Posted by: John

Thanks, Rurik. I'm afraid I shall all too soon be emulating those stalwarts.

Posted by: John | Oct 10, 2006 8:25:14 PM

Posted by: ponsdorf

Dunno whether to laugh or curse? Something so silly should be funny, shouldn't it?

Posted by: ponsdorf | Oct 11, 2006 2:16:03 AM

Posted by: Skul

In Australia, they have denied rides to blind people with seeing-eye dogs. That's a fact. Time to start pulling licences.

Posted by: Skul | Oct 11, 2006 2:40:21 AM

Posted by: Eric

Guys,

A couple of related links, found through LGF:

Apparently, the sanity prevailed:


http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=1143193&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1


Soldier's encounter with a cabbie:


http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=1110262&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1


Also, there was this story about a blind woman in England being refused a
cab ride because she

had a guide dog with her. But unfortunately I could not find it at this
time.

Eric.

Posted by: Eric | Oct 11, 2006 3:38:14 PM